[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120619152147.9f377a64.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 15:21:47 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Pearson, Greg" <greg.pearson@...com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
"hpa@...ux.intel.com" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
"shangw@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <shangw@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"yinghai@...nel.org" <yinghai@...nel.org>,
"benh@...nel.crashing.org" <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm/memblock: fix overlapping allocation when
doubling reserved array
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:00:22 +0000
"Pearson, Greg" <greg.pearson@...com> wrote:
> I wasn't quite sure what to do about that at first either, I read
> "Documentation/SubmittingPatches" and it says:
>
> "The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the
> development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path."
>
> Since Yinghai contributed some code that is in the current version of
> the patch I thought the "Signed-off-by" tag would be ok, but if
> something else is more appropriate I have no problem re-cutting the
> patch to make the chain of custody more clear.
Yup, we shouldn't expect people to be able to magically infer
fine-grained details such as this from hints embedded in the signoff
trail. Fortunately we can write stuff in English ;)
I added
: This patch contains contributions from Yinghai Lu.
to the changelog. Simple, huh? :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists